Everybody loves a good myth and urban legend. Even when we know there's no way it's not true, it's still makes for a great conversation and we always think in the back of our heads that maybe, just maybe these stories might be true. The myths on the list today have varying levels of truth to them, but most of them reveal something about either the band itself or how we view them. A good myth adds another layer to the musicians we know and love. So today, I present to you the Top Ten Rock and Roll Myths, right after these honorable mentions.

Good article, but a lot of typos. They also seem to accept the "Michael Jackson slept in a hyperbaric chamber" rumor as true, when it probably is not. He used one to treat his burns, but there's no evidence that he slept in it, AFAIK. I tried posting a response, but I keep getting an error, so I don't think it went through.

I remember hearing the Rod Stewart one back in the mid-to-late seventies. Probably the oldest UL I ever heard.

I looked over the Pink Floyd/Wizard of Oz YouTube link that was supposed to show the 'eerie' timing of different sections of the album coordinated to the movie. It always sounded like a stupid rumor to me, and now I think even less of it. The 'coincidences' did not even seem significant. It's like those silly 'studies' that take every 13th (or whatever) letter of some text and find that there are words embedded, and they are near other words which gives them all special significance.

The writer of the article made a factual error. Merrick's skeleton is preserved and AFAIK, still on display at the London Royal Hospital. (Though I've seen an online petition to give them a proper burial.) There were some skin samples kept in jars until they were destroyed in the Blitz.
I remember Jackson talked with Oprah about this subject. His response was "Where would I keep them?" He did admit to being moved by Merrick's story, but denied trying to buy the skeleton.

Good article, but a lot of typos. They also seem to accept the "Michael Jackson slept in a hyperbaric chamber" rumor as true, when it probably is not. He used one to treat his burns, but there's no evidence that he slept in it, AFAIK. I tried posting a response, but I keep getting an error, so I don't think it went through.

The weird thing about the Michael Jackson and the hyperbaric chamber story is that while it couldn't be true (actually sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber would kill you, from what I've read--you can only manage a few hours at a time), it was Jackson's own people who spread the story, in some ways (Frank DeLio comes to mind). But Jackson always denied it, saying he had donated money to buy one to the burn center where he had been treated, went inside it to check it out, was photographed, and then someone leaked said photo to the press with the story attached to it. What seems more likely is that some press agent came up with this idea for the tabloids and it sort of got out of hand. Whether Jackson himself ever approved of the story being told, I'm not sure I can have an opinion on, but I do think there was a point at which he regretted it if he did ever approve of telling the tabloids that story.

Good article, but a lot of typos. They also seem to accept the "Michael Jackson slept in a hyperbaric chamber" rumor as true, when it probably is not.

No they don't - it says "We assume that Michael Jackson did a lot of crazy things during his time on Earth, from sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber to undergoing countless plastic surgeries ..." (my italics). That fits with the tone of the rest of the article, that some of the stories should be true, even if they're clearly not true and also physically impossible.

Does anybody else find it takes them ages to read that kind of article because they have to stop and watch most of the clips? I like having them there to illustrate things, but it can be annoying if you feel compelled to click on them all. At least in this case I know half the music already so don't need to.

After reading the bit about "Paul is Dead", I went and did some research on the claim of the walrus being a symbol of death in ancient cultures. I found it unlikely, since the only cultures that would've been familiar with the animal were natives to the Arctic Circle. Inuits and other tribes, for example. It seems the walrus was more of a symbol of togetherness and protection. On Wikipedia, there was something about the souls of people who died violently playing with a walrus head beyond the Aurora Borealis. An Inuit who killed a walrus was expected to fill its mouth with sea water and thank Sedna, the Goddess of Sea Mammals for the gift. Still, a far cry from being a symbol of death.
Is the writer maybe thinking about that UL that the walrus in "The Walrus and the Carpenter"represents Eastern religion? I think that if Lewis Carroll really wanted something to represent Eastern religion, he would've used an elephant.

...Is the writer maybe thinking about that UL that the walrus in "The Walrus and the Carpenter"represents Eastern religion?...

I think the writer is saying the walrus as a symbol of death because the people of the time created and promulgated the false idea that the walrus was a symbol of death. I don't think the author believes the symbol to be an historic or spiritual symbol.

The Paul is Dead myth is the one that brought me to the ULRP and is one of my all time favourites.

I found it unlikely, since the only cultures that would've been familiar with the animal were natives to the Arctic Circle. Inuits and other tribes, for example. It seems the walrus was more of a symbol of togetherness and protection. On Wikipedia, there was something about the souls of people who died violently playing with a walrus head beyond the Aurora Borealis. An Inuit who killed a walrus was expected to fill its mouth with sea water and thank Sedna, the Goddess of Sea Mammals for the gift. Still, a far cry from being a symbol of death.
Is the writer maybe thinking about that UL that the walrus in "The Walrus and the Carpenter"represents Eastern religion? I think that if Lewis Carroll really wanted something to represent Eastern religion, he would've used an elephant.

I think thats the ticket - The Beatles (mostly George Harrison) had a heavy interest in Indian beliefs - something that was really big back in the day - and one that I argue that people bought into because they would never check up on something so foreign and different. For what itís worth - These guys (linked by Snopes) covered it thusly:

Quote:

The walrus is a sign of death in certain cultures.
REALITY: No traceable legends support this assertion. In fact, this "clue" can be traced to Fred LaBour's article in the Michigan Daily

First, for the record, I never believed Paul McCartney was at any time dead, and in fact, since I was two years old in 1969, I wouldn't have understood had someone tried to explain it to me. By the time I had any idea who the Beatles were, McCartney was already in Wings, so I was told about the hoax as a hoax.

But I do have a few questions: the first was about the Walrus being a death symbol, which has already been answered. The second is about the open hand being a death symbol. Is it? I've never heard of that outside of this context either. The third came up in that silly 20 minute youtube documentary I actually just watched; it claimed that it was very significant that on the Abbey Road cover, the cigarette is in Paul's right hand, even though Paul is left-handed. It never said what this signified, though-- that the fake Paul was right handed, or that this was supposed to be a clue to fans that something was up. Anyway, do smokers always have the cigarette in their dominant hand? I would have guessed no, because I'd think you'd have the match or lighter in your dominant hand, and keep the cigarette in your non-dominant hand, to leave the dominant hand free to do other things. I know I've seen people write and smoke at the same time. And every single one of those people driving and smoking (in the US, anyway) can't be left-handed.

Last, the documentary suggested that "Billy Shears," mentioned in Sgt. Peppers is the name of the look-alike who stepped in for Paul, and that the other three Beatles knew of him, because he had won a Paul McCartney Look-alike contest. This ought to be verifiable. Has anyone ever tried to verify it?

it claimed that it was very significant that on the Abbey Road cover, the cigarette is in Paul's right hand, even though Paul is left-handed. It never said what this signified, though-- that the fake Paul was right handed, or that this was supposed to be a clue to fans that something was up. Anyway, do smokers always have the cigarette in their dominant hand? I would have guessed no, because I'd think you'd have the match or lighter in your dominant hand, and keep the cigarette in your non-dominant hand, to leave the dominant hand free to do other things.

I'm not completely sure of this, but I have heard McCartney is right-handed except when it comes to playing the guitar. Some Beatles biography (I think it was either Philip Norman's or Hunter Davies') mentions that he struggled a great deal with learning to play at first because he was trying to play right-handed.

Come to think of it, though, that sounds exactly like something the Fab Four would have told a reporter just to mess with him, like the time they said they got the idea for their haircuts after getting out of a pool.

I'm not completely sure of this, but I have heard McCartney is right-handed except when it comes to playing the guitar. Some Beatles biography (I think it was either Philip Norman's or Hunter Davies') mentions that he struggled a great deal with learning to play at first because he was trying to play right-handed.

It was in Philip Norman's book (Shout!), and he was wrong. Paul was struggling because he was a southpaw trying to play a guitar strung for a right-hander.

As Paul said in a Rolling Stone piece (11 September 1986):

Quote:

Kurt Loder: On a more trivial but similarly ancient note, a new biography of you claims that Paul McCartney, the world's most famous left-handed bassist, is actually right-handed. True?

Paul McCartney: No, I'm quite definitely left-handed.

Many people aren't aware that Ringo was also left-handed (although he wrote right-handed and used a right-handed set-up on his drum kit).

I'm not completely sure of this, but I have heard McCartney is right-handed except when it comes to playing the guitar. Some Beatles biography (I think it was either Philip Norman's or Hunter Davies') mentions that he struggled a great deal with learning to play at first because he was trying to play right-handed.

I don't think "right-handed except playing guitar" is right, but perhaps that he's a natural lefty who had been trained into using the right hand at home and/or school and found that when it came to playing instruments it was best to follow his innate laterality.

I don't think "right-handed except playing guitar" is right, but perhaps that he's a natural lefty who had been trained into using the right hand at home and/or school and found that when it came to playing instruments it was best to follow his innate laterality.

Slight non sequitur but my mum is right handed except for paddling a kayak. I don't think she was trained out of left-handed-ness. So it is possible to do certain things different.

Slight non sequitur but my mum is right handed except for paddling a kayak. I don't think she was trained out of left-handed-ness. So it is possible to do certain things different.

I know, but guitar playing is one area where having a strong laterality is influential, because contrary to what one would think by watching the flashy movements of the fingers of the fretting hand, the picking hand is the one that needs a lot of accuracy and control. (Gary Moore on the other hand is left-handed but learned the guitar in the standard position because he honestly believed he had to - so he just put a lot of effort onto it).

There is, however, a Beatle who plays his instrument the 'wrong' way: Ringo is also left-handed but he uses a regular drum set. That's why some of his phrases are difficult to duplicate because he tended to start them with the 'wrong' hand - as opposed to Phil Collins, who, while also left-handed, sets up his kits mirrored (hi-hat on his right, floor tom on his left).

I (right-handed) would feel very awkward if I tried to play a guitar (or any string instrument) the wrong way, but a left-handed celist I know says there is nothing special with holding the bow in his right hand and do the fingering with his left.

I don't think "right-handed except playing guitar" is right, but perhaps that he's a natural lefty who had been trained into using the right hand at home and/or school and found that when it came to playing instruments it was best to follow his innate laterality.

My brother was a big Paul McCartney fan-- Beatles, Wings, solo albums, he had it all, and I remember the insert of one album had a big B&W photo of McCartney writing, sitting on a couch. He had the pen, or pencil, in his left hand, so unless the negative was flipped, he writes left-handed.

Handedness is less immutable than most people think, though, and I come from a family with lots of lefties, and a few people who genuinely are ambidextrous. So I'm here to tell you that handedness gnerally refers to the hand a person writes with, and it doesn't necessarily follow that you will use that hand for all other tasks.

DH is a lefty, but he uses the computer mouse, and cuts right-handed.

I write right-handed, but for some reason, when I write on am upright surface, like a chalkboard, I prefer to use my left hand. I can also draw left-handed. I have never met anyone else who can draw with either hand.

When I was at basic training, there were ten lefties in my platoon of 68, but four of them fired their rifles right-handed. There were also six righties who fired left-handed. I think that had to do with having better vision in the left eye, or something, possibly.

My paternal grandfather could genuinely right with both hands, and I saw him do it-- in fact, it was a parlor trick of sorts. He'd taught himself to write his first name with his left hand, while writing his last name with his right hand. He was born in 1905, so it's possible he was a lefty who was switched in school, and that's how he ended up being able to write with both hands.

My only point is that the fact that Paul has a cigarette in his right hand means nothing. Even if he was left-handed, and most smokers use their dominant hand for their cigarettes, he may not have, because he may have had a habit of smoking while writing. I was just curious about the assumption in the first place, and wondered if some smokers would chime in.